~ Reflections of a pastor…

Preaching Ephesians 5:21-33

“A biblical text without a context is nothing more than a pretext for whatever we want to say”

There are fewer places in the New Testament where this saying could be more appropriate than Ephesians 5:21-33. This past Sunday I had the wonderful joy and privilege of preaching on this text. I thought I’d share some of my thoughts about the text and the hermeneutical considerations I concluded as part of my sermon. I don’t mind if people disagree or pick holes in my arguments as long as it done with respect!

I feel that many of the arguments made for particular relational distinctions and roles within a “typical” Christian home are often made without considering the entire counsel of the Scripture. For instance, the Bibles speaks of men and women being created equally while also being spiritual equals (Gal 3:28). Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of women in positions of authority in the early church and it is highly likely there were female teachers. The gospels especially raise the value and esteem of women in light of the cultural understanding; especially those who have been cast aside because of sin or ethnic/cultural circumstances. It is also important that this text in no way speaks to a woman’s role as a teacher or governance. Therefore, it is imperative that when we come to a point of making theological claims regarding this passage and what a “typical” Christian home should look like we do with all these things in mind. This is the way I interpret the data anyway…

I like the way the New Living translation deals with this whole section. First of all it highlights verse 21 as the beginning of the new section, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” Then it goes on to say, “For wives this means…” and then “For husbands this means…”. Although this is not a literal translation of the Greek, it is, in my opinion a much better way of rendering the text in a way that conveys the meaning of the entire section. In the main section of my sermon I basically outlined the cultural and theological implications of 5:21-33. In summary, I said:

5:21 is the key to understanding everything in 5:21-33. Paul explains what submission in reverence to Christ looks like when lived out within the context of the home (in fact he does this for children, fathers, slaves and master also). Paul expounds what mutual submission means for both wives and husbands.

In Paul’s day there was order in the house. Husbands were the head and wives submitted to his leadership. Paul does not challenge the structure of this in anyway. However, he does interpret the meaning of these roles “in Christ” and this does challenge the attitudes….especially of the husbands!

Therefore, Paul works within the culture understanding of his time to radically define Christian marriage. The household code is judged in light of Christ and looks like verse 21 – “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”

The submission Paul is calling the Ephesians to a relational submission not based on cultural expectations but out of love – a love that reflects their love of Christ.

It is my opinion thatthis passage is not about who stays home and looks after the kids and who goes out to work. For each marriage the implications of verse 33, “So again I say each man must love his wife as he loves himself and the wife must respect her husband” will be different. What I understand Paul to be saying is that Christian marriage is all about mutual submission. It’s about putting the person we have committed ourselves to, the person with whom we are now “one flesh” before everything and everyone else. Even our own wants and desires! I would argue strongly that Paul is working towards a much more egalitarian understanding of what marriage should look like while recognising that in their culture order was needed and men ruled. He doesn’t challenge the structure rather the nature and attitudes within the relationships.

I concluded for the people in our congregation that it is ultimately about working towards a marriage that reflects Christ and his love for us. It is easy to go through the motions of marriage and do what we are supposed to do. Paul is urging us on to a more Christlike relationship with our spouses. It is a shame so much attention has been focused on the cultural attitudes of this text and whether we should affirm them as “the way things should be” that we have perhaps lost sight of the point Paul is trying to make. It is imperative we reflect on the challenges of modern marriage and family in light of Jesus Christ and consider what it means for us to have a Christ imaged marriage!

Is there less order needed in our culture? I’m wondering how much the culture should change the interpretation. Also, in Colossians it only says wives should be submissive to their husbands and again husbands love their wives. I would think he said it that way twice for a reason. However as far as husbands are concerned, they are to love their wives. I think the submissive part is more for the wives to figure out than the husbands since he was speaking to them about that, not husbands.
Jeff

Sorry Jeff it is a poorly worded sentance. What I emant o say was “in their culture household structure could not be challenged”

I think our homes need order, that goes without saying, but not necessarily the same cultural expectations as they had in Paul’s day (although if people want the husband as the head etc that is fine by me but my wife I and I are a partnership).

Collossians is what Witherington calls “first order moral discourse” – it is very vague and very general. it suggests the author and the hearers don’t know each other all that well. In Ephesians what we have is second order moral discourse. Paul feels a little freer to expand on his thoughts. (For first order moral discourse try Philippians of Onesimus). I would argue that Paul is recognising household structures but not endorsing them as “the way all homes should be” – For that he makes his point in verse 21 “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”

I hope that makes some sense. I am on the run and need to be at an appointment…:)

Not that I agree with it but it makes sense now. Thanks for the explanation. I had never heard the second order thing. I’ll have to look into it. In any case I want to go back to O’Brien and read again.
Jeff

I have been preparing to teach an adult Sunday School class on this text. The teachers manual leaves something to be desired as the commentary is not as clear as I would have wanted. The commentary jumps around seemingly covering all bases yet not convincingly. I appreciate your commentary on this and feel better prepared for facilitating the discussion.

About Mark Stevens

Mark is pastor of the Happy Valley Church of Christ in Adelaide, South Australia. He holds a Master of Ministry from Tabor College Adelaide. The Parson's Patch is a collection of musings on the pastoral vocation, coffee (humour), gardening and other topics of interest! Mark reviews books for Zondervan, IVP, Kregel Academic and Logos Bible Software.

Endorsement

"I am happy to commend Mark Stevens' fine blog which provides resources and discussion on a panoply of things crucial to Christian ministry in the 21rst century. But quite apart from the resources, Mark evinces a mind for what really matters when it comes to the serious study of God's Word--- highly recommended. "